This will affect organ donations as well.
Prostitutes don't have to worry as much about giving people HIV if they already have it. However they do have to worry about contracting it even more if they don't. Same with people that share needles.
The implications are pretty far reaching.
Because Californians would elect a reanimated Adolf Hitler as long as he had a "D" next to his name.
How... How can anyone think this was a good idea?? You can refuse to tell an innocent partner that you're HIV positive all because you're horny and afraid they'll not fuck you if you tell them you have an incurable death-sentence STD, and all you'll get is a slap on the wrist?? 1 year in jail tops??
I... I'm speechless.
Man, people are fucking dumb. Well I guess that's mean. I should say "uninformed".
"I won't be going to California now! I might get HIV from a blood transfusion if I get hurt!"
"Time to start banning blood given from California!"
You guys realize that blood collected by donations is required by law to be tested for many diseases, including HIV? You won't be getting blood from people infected with HIV.
Also, as mentioned in this thread, this law does not affect donating blood in any way, since a person's blood will be thrown out if it's infected, and that's assuming they either don't know (the law only punishes KNOWING you have HIV and DELIBERATELY using it to infect someone), or they lie on the pre-test. Before you give blood every time, you take a small questionnaire, and if you answer yes to having HIV, or having many gay partners, you won't even get stuck with a needle. You'll be given a juice and shown the door.
This law affects people having sex to deliberately infect someone with HIV, or needle swapping for the same purpose.
And again, INTENT matters. If someone infects someone else with HIV deliberately, and they do a good enough job of concealing intent to do so, then they won't be charged. Read the law already. "Knowingly" infecting someone with HIV. A lot of you are talking about situations where someone ACCIDENTALLY infects someone with HIV going up. Uhhhhhhh how would it go up if they don't know they have HIV? How would you charge people with this law (misdemeanor or felony) if their argument is that they did not know, and the other person can't prove it was deliberate or knowing?
I take it back, if someone didn't consider all of the above for their "response" to this being about blood donations, then yes, they are pretty dumb.
“Terrible things are happening outside. Poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared.”
Diary of Anne Frank
January 13, 1943
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
-Kujako-
“Terrible things are happening outside. Poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared.”
Diary of Anne Frank
January 13, 1943
It's weird how people that object to gun control regulations because "criminals don't follow the law" are so mad about this.
I mean, I'm not really in favour of the new law here...but if the whole thing about criminals not following the law is true....then nothing should really change right?
As somebody with friends and family with HIV this ruling is an absolute disgrace![]()
This is my point. The same people that tell you gun laws aren't effective because criminals don't follow the laws are also the same people getting angry here. They only apply that reasoning when it comes to guns...but, if it were actually a fact, no law would be of any use at all because "criminals don't follow the laws"
Honestly though, if you do knowingly infect someone with HIV....you should be charged with attempted murder.
Last edited by Egomaniac; 2017-10-09 at 06:08 PM.
So this law was made to let people who spread aids in the past, get off because they didn't get tested? I love how dip shits are acting like "now" they will get tested and surrender their ability to feign ignorance in court when hit with a lawsuit in the future. Right. . . suuuuurrreeeeee they will.
"o hay, let me take this test now so I can NEVER have sex again.". . . . Said Issac Newton and NO ONE EVER FUCKING ELSE.
/facepalm
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
-Kujako-
No, I'm not saying anything of the kind....I'm talking about people that act like gun control regulations are a waste of time because "criminals don't follow the law".
So...the thought process they have works like this:
1) there's a law to stop people from doing something.
2) criminals don't follow the law so they do that thing anyway.
3) the law is useless.
So, if we apply that same logic here
1) there's a law that makes knowingly infecting people with HIV a felony.
2) criminals don't follow the law so they knowingly infect people with HIV anyway.
3) the law is useless.
Now, once again, I'm not saying I personally agree with this change in the law (In my opinion if you knowingly infect someone with HIV you should be charged with attempted murder)..I'm just pointing out that if you believe "criminals don't follow the law therefore the law is useless"...then the change is ultimately meaningless.
I was responding specifically to the part of the OP where they talked about an influx of blood in blood banks.
Yes, the punishment part is the main topic. But I was responding to the OP's suggestion that this would have a particular side effect.
It seems to me that you can't understand that people can discuss something other than the 'important part.'